More lame duck lameness

ARTICLE: McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq: In Contrast to His Previous Views, Retired General Writes of 'Strategic Peril', By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post , March 28, 2007; Page A11

People have hung on McCaffrey's word for years WRT Iraq, and I've found his reports to be highly accurate.

Here he cites some good reasons for optimism but likewise underscores the solid reasons for long-term pessimism.

In weighing both judgments, you can't help but get the feeling that Bush and Co. are simply running out the clock, hoping to barrow the score as much as possible but not making the desperate run to pull out any win.

The diplomatic offensive is similarly arrayed: just enough to get some short-term progress (perhaps on Palestine) but not enough to force any comprehensive advance on any timetable Bush can complete.

As long as this mix of short- and long-term signals continue to be sent, I would expect similarly half-hearted attempts from all concerned: all will make moves that look like an openness to serious concessions but none will quite follow through in any breakthrough manner. They all just want it on the record for the next administration that they've been trying as hard as anyone else to make things work.

Meanwhile, the Dems will do everything conceivable to tie Bush's hand in case Rice is being set up on Iran just like Powell was set up on Iraq. They are wise and correct to do this, because the danger of some stupid kinetic reach for quick solutions near the end of the term will be large, given the temptation of such an approach to those in this administration who believe that restoring power to the presidency is their real historical legacy.

Would I like to be able to argue for a better outcome still on Bush's watch? You bet.

But here's where the lack of strategic imagination in this crowd comes to haunt us, reminding us that Bush's second term was a profound electoral mistake.

Mr. "Milwaukee package" delivers his "Milwaukee package"

Briefed over 100 financial investors in Milwaukee over lunch today at the athletic club. They belong to the Chartered Financial Analyst global network, which is:

Membership

CFA Institute is comprised of more than 89,000 individual voting members and 134 member societies across the globe that believe in setting a higher standard for the investment profession. Individual members either hold the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation or are active in the investment business and all agree to abide by the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct.

Governance

The CFA Institute Board of Governors consists of 20 individuals who represent a cross-section of the CFA Institute membership.

Locations

With members in 131 countries around the world, CFA Institute has headquarters in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA, and offices in Hong Kong, London, and New York. CFA Institute is a 501(c)(6) organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

It's basically a worldwide professional association that trains up its members to global standards of investing. Good definition of a New Core country? One that has a new CFA group, like Turkey.

What was fun for me: yesterday at CENTCOM I did a 50-minute brief. That's 25 "white slides" that I count at 2 minutes per slide (I don't count the black transition slides). To do the brief today for the investors, I keep 15 and swapped out ten. I love having a core brief that doesn't change much but which is easily adapted to different audiences through the swapping out of the secondary slides. Plus, I like the fact that I don't have to change the brief that much for senior officers at CENTCOM or financial investors in Milwaukee. In effect, the message is very similar, just delivered a bit differently.

Good questions afterwards, plus good discussion.

The title reference: I have the "Milwaukee package" in Packer season tix (2nd and fifth home games that used to be played in Milwaukee).

Great day at Central Command in Tampa

After getting back with Kev from DC Sunday night, I flew to Tampa first thing Monday morning and keynoted a security cooperation conference there chaired by Deputy Commander of Centcom, VADM Dave Nichols.

Spoke in big, cool auditorium to about 250 officers all in desert cammies.

Real thrill was during minutes before talk as place fills up. Officer after officer walks up, intro's self and tells me how My books/briefs/articles influenced his work in this or that billet.

My favorite? Guy who saw me at NDU two years ago, then goes to OSD and is told to read PNM in order to get ready to help write DOD directive 3000. Again, the word "guidebook" is used.

After several sloppy-phrasing deliveries over the past week or so, this one was dead on. I spoke faster and more clearly than I think I ever have. I was completely in the zone. I credit it simply to catching up on sleep and not switching so many time zones so rapidly.

You may remember Nichols from the piece Ignatius wrote about his use of PNM as a strategic guide to his planning while head of naval forces in Central Command.

Well, Nichols gave me a really fantastic introduction, saying he still uses PNM as a guidebook for his work as Deputy Commander of CENTCOM and that the vision infuses a lot of CENTCOM planning. If I never got another compliment in my career, hell, if this was the ONLY compliment I ever got in my career, it would be more than enough for me.

Remembering all the reviews I've gotten over the year about how my stuff isn't practical and can't be used in any real planning sense, and then having the sorts of experiences I've had this month in Africa with CJTF-HOA, in the Med with our naval/NATO forces, and yesterday in Tampa ... well, it's both gratifying and indicative of how detached from reality the average academic pinhead reviewer is. Those weenies like to review my stuff from their academic perches, criticizing my theory. Their own problem is that I'm not a theoretician but an active, career-spanning practitioner of strategic planning whose main client has always been and will always be the U.S. military. What I do, and what my impact is, is but slightly glimpsed by the outside and when it is, it's rarely interpreted correctly (Ignatius the Wise is a rare person in this regard, like Jaffe). What I write down for publications is a refracted view of that world, delivered to the best of my ability and delivered for maximum understanding while protecting the equities of those whose trust I value as they value mine.

But this is all primping, silly-ass stuff to begin with.

If I had wanted the approval of a bunch of pinhead academics, I would have stayed in academia back in 1990 (and no, I was never an academic at the Naval War College, which was a big part of my problem there). Instead, I have always sought a different audience with a very different goal: to lead a worldwide revolution in thinking about the seam between war and peace.

Judging by my travels this month, my side is definitely winning.

And I'm very proud to be a small but crucial part of that historical process.

Many thanks to Tyler Durden for hosting me yesterday at CENTCOM, and yes, Tyler, I still want that write-up and that POC info.

Pure heaven [updated with pictures]

Spoke at U Tennessee Wednesday to mix of locals and students and faculty. Maybe 250.

Went 75 with 15 Q&A. Bit sloppy on my phrasing, and like so many college audiences, this one pretty serious and wouldn't laugh too much.

Afterwards met parents-in-law of David Granger, editor-in-chief of Esquire. They said "our little David" hasn't changed one bit since leaving the volunteer state, and that makes them all the more proud of his achievements. That was kinda cool and unexpected! Naturally, I praised David to the hilt, because he's been a great influence on and promoter of my work.

After the talk, I go about an hour with a class who had read PNM for their globalization class. That was a lot of fun.

Then a working dinner in Oak Ridge at the lab, then all-day meetings today.

Just a 2-day, 1-night trip! Pure heaven.

The Gawker edition

I never dreamed we'd get linked on Gawker. But Tom's post where he mentions meeting Esquire EIC David Granger's in-laws scored a mention. Crazy.

Wanted for the Gap: tough-but-fair leaders with vision

ARTICLE: The perils of “parapolitics”, The Economist, Mar 22nd 2007

Very interesting piece. Reads almost like an internal intervention led by a tough-but-fair leader (Uribe) with lots of mil aid from outside (US). In this push, you see all the same dynamics and challenges of any post-conflict nation-building (bolstering internal security forces, rehabbing baddies, extending networks of police that trigger the return of just enough social trust, and all of these things leading to the sine qua non of recovery: rising FDI.

Long way to go, yes, but very encouraging and proving the utility of the great leader with vision.

I get a lot of readers and audience members trying to get me to upgrade Latin America from sort of bad to truly ugly, in effect asking, what will it take to get us down there militarily?

I always have a hard time doing that, because I think the process will simply be slow and steady and largely economic, since I have a hard time coming up with serious military interventions down there, even with Chavez (despite reports to the contrary, I have never declared Chavez's overthrow to be necessary, much less imminent; actually you need the counter-example to prove your point on markets, as Chavez will do nicely soon enough).

I would love to see Colombia escape any downstream international intervention of the sort I sketched at the end of BFA. But there's a lot of ground to be successfully covered between Uribe's current achievements and a Colombian government that actually controls all its territory.

But it's good to remain optimistic, which is why I only rarely write about Latin America in a security sense.

Thanks to Steve Pampinella for sending this.

Just more posturing

ARTICLE: Iran threatens `illegal' nuclear steps, Associated Press, Mar 21, 2007

What would you expect him to say in response? "My bad"?

This is a negotiation and Tehran didn't care for our latest offering. Don't hang on such exchanges for understanding. It's like trying to figure out a football game by only listening to referee calls.

Thanks to Steven in Minnesota for sending this.

Another good sign

ARTICLE: China's Military Proposes Cooperation, By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN,
Associated Press, Mar 23, 2007

Thanks to Brandon Winters for sending this.

Weekend pix

View of National Archives from below, just as you enter the exhibition hall. Kevin, convinced a treasure map is drawn on the back of the Declaration of Independence, is armed with lemon juice and a plan to steal it.

We shall see....

Kev got both Declaration and Constitution--only $14!

Home again

This has been a brutal month, but a little less brutal this weekend, cause Kev came along for a Baltimore-DC trip.

Friday we did the Archives, Ford Theater, got turned away at Pentagon (3-week notice to sign up for tour, I was shocked to discover), and spent rest of afternoon at Air & Space (8 kills for our combined team in the fighter simulation).

Saturday I got up at the Baltimore hotel where we stayed (Marriot Waterfront) and briefed about 700 naval officers at a supply community conference. Great audience. Two giant screens. I wandered around the ballroom so much I wore myself out with the blooming allergies coming on.

Kev and I spent rest of day in Baltimore, just wandering around the waterfront. Highlight? Learning how to ride Segways at the Science Museum and getting to toodle around on them. You don't just stand on them, it's a constant exercise in isometrics and balance. Very intuitive.

Today we had breakfast with my old mentor Hank Gaffney in Bethesda and then did Udvar-Hazy at Dulles, which was stunning. Seeing Enola Gay totally restored was really something. A museum worth visiting once in your life.

I am so tired of travel, but spending all that time with Kevin this weekend was a lot of fun.

The USG hedge fund for emerging markets

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “Bush’s Aid Policy Prods Countries: Yemen and Lesotho Embrace Overhauls; The Gambia Balks,” by Michael M. Phillips, Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2007, p. A6.

ARTICLE: “China Is Forming Agency To Invest Foreign Reserves: A $1 trillion hoard resulting from Beijing’s huge trade surpluses,” by Jim Yardley and David Barboza, New York Times, 10 March 2007, p. B3.

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “Advocates of Borderless Money Temper Outlook for Benefits,” by David Wessel, Wall Street Journal, 15 March 2007, p. A4.

The Millennium Challenge Corp is probably the most innovative thing the Bush administration has done, because it’s all about making clear to developing economies what the standards are for emergence.

In 2005, on his first day as head of President Bush’s signature foreign-aid program, John Danilovich’s to-do list included the unpleasant task of telling Yemen’s president that his reform efforts had slipped so badly that the country was being cut off.

Last month, Mr. Danilovich phoned Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Saleh with better news: Yemen was back on the list of countries eligible for grants from the Millennium Challenge program.

What happened during those 15 months is evidence of the potential ripple effects of the high-profile aid program--and the power of the threat to publicly shame countries that veer off the path of economic and political overhaul.

In short, it’s all about being credentialed by the biggest aid donor (size, not per GDP) in the world.

My favorite example to date: Lesotho previously treated women the same as kids in terms of legal rights, unable to buy land or borrow money. We told them no good if you want MCC credentials:

With the Millennium Challenge Corp. pressing for changes, the Lesotho Parliament passed a law in November putting married women on equal legal footing with their husbands.

Only twice have countries been suspended: the nice Yemen story and the un-nice Ghana one (human rights abuses).

So America basically has a hedge fund of very small amounts (only $3b granted to date), but one that focuses on getting countries to acceptable thresholds.

Meanwhile, China puts together a fund that may command as much as half a trillion dollars and make financial investments (obviously different from grants, but in many instances not as much as you might assume) both at home and abroad. Naturally, China will be focused on making money as opposed to--as the leadership likes to put it--“interfering in the internal affairs” of other countries.

It’ll be interesting to watch the demonstration effects of each.

Why do I say this?

The last article (from the always great “Politics & Economics” column in the WSJ) notes some recent research that suggests that the freer flow of investments in and of itself isn’t the big change agent in terms of volume (as in, more money equals more change), but rather that the sheer connectivity of accepting money from the outside and sending it abroad forces a lot of positive rule-set changes.

In short, exposure to global capital markets ups a country’s game, forces financial markets and firms to be more efficient, offers businesses and consumers better terms for borrowing and lending, reduces opening for corruption and discourages short-sighted domestic economic policies. It isn't the money; it’s the collateral benefits.

In other words, there’s the policy connectivity of encouraging new rules explicitly, and there’s the financial connectivity of encouraging new rules implicitly.

Both can be very positive.

America’s compliance rule-set goes global, exporting security in the process

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “U.S. to Cut Off Macau Bank: Move Follows Probe of North Korean Ties, Could Hinder Nuclear Talks,” by Neil King Jr. and Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2007, p. A4.

ARTICLE: “U.S. Cautions Foreign Companies on Iran Deals: Oil and Gas Assistance Could Lead to Penalties,” by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 21 March 2007, p. C1.

The Bush administration’s push against the Banco Delta Asia bank in Macau is interesting to watch. The whole SARBOX/Patriot Act rule set was basically America telling the world, “this is the new minimum level security practices you must adhere to or we’ll run you out of business.” Riggs bank in DC was set up as the example case, and the bank, which was way lax on keeping tabs on its most nefarious customers, was forced to sell itself to PNC. Poof! Just like that, the “bank of presidents” was gone.

That sent a real chill and signaled just how serious the government was about these new rules.

Now, with North Korea and Iran, we’re seeing a similar exporting of our internal rule sets.

With Banco Delta, we’re being very Patriot Act, basically saying, “we know your bad customers and if you don’t treat them as such, we’ll treat you as such by cutting off any financial connectivity with the U.S. financial system. Decide for yourself which line of business is more important.”

With Iran, Bush is using a Clinton law to warn energy companies and foreign governments about long-term investments in Iran, getting better responses for now from our European friends (who love sanctions per se) than our Asian ones (India and China are definitely going to invest a lot in Iran, one way or another, simply because they have little choice given the rapid ramp up of their energy needs).

Tricky business, because--of course--we’re learning just how useful it can be to have China on our side on a host of troubling situations around the world. Just name a situation or nasty regime, and I’ll tell you how we’re quickly realizing that China’s on the far side of that equation.

Keep the nukes, forego the utopians and guilt-ridden Cold Worriers

GLOBAL VIEW COLUMN: “Who Needs Nukes,” by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 20 March 2007, p. A18.

In general, I like Bret Stephens, but he writes in such a sarcastic way at times that I think he’s too clever by half, meaning he often buries his lead.

He starts off by saying that nukes are “going out of fashion where they are needed most and coming into fashion where they are needed least.”

Again, a bit too cute.

Nukes have never gone out of fashion among great powers that already have them. Yes, we fuss here and there with arms control reductions that make the masses and certain eggheads very happy, but the U.S. will never get rid of them, any more than any other nation with significant holdings will ever get rid of them. It’s a club worth belonging to--pure and simple.

Nukes are not coming into fashion where they “are needed least,” but rather with countries who are truly roguish in their behavior and yet seek--in the post-9/11 environment--serious hedges against the possibility of U.S.-led invasion. That’s a whopping two states known as North Korea and Iran, the surviving members of the “axis of evil.” Nobody else is seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, because basically everyone else is convinced that their relationships with the great powers and especially with the United States is such that, in the event of serious crisis, our nukes will be used to deter certain escalations from happening.

But even with Iran and North Korea, it’s clear that nukes are for having, not using. If either just wanted a nuke to be able to pop one off pronto, it would have done that a long time ago. No, both regimes want nukes primarily as bargaining chips with the U.S., as both see their antagonistic relationship with us as their primary international security issue. Neither state would gain any “hegemony” over anybody else by threatening the use of nukes. They’d simply invite U.S. strikes.

Having said all that, I am one who will never argue against modernizing our nuclear arsenal nor maintaining it at a level that makes it clear to anybody on the planet that we can and will vaporize them under certain intolerable conditions and/or acts of aggression.

Without a doubt, nukes have been the best thing that’s ever happened to great power relations, effectively killing great power war (unless you think it a strange coincidence that as soon as nukes were invented and used in 1945, great power warfare disappeared from the planet, never to appear again).

Of course, the threat of such war’s return always lingers, and that’s why retaining nukes in sufficient numbers will make sense for the foreseeable future, no matter the weird, self-indulgent guilt trips foisted upon us by scientists and aging statesmen.

The market chokepoint on getting meds to the Gap

ARTICLE: “Beyond the egg: The global vaccines industry is undergoing a renaissance,” The Economist, 10 March 2007, p. 65.

ARTICLE: “For Booming Biotech Firms, A New Threat: Generics: Democrats’ Bills Would Clear Way for Copies; Preparations in Croatia,” by Ana Wilde Mathews and Leila Abboud, Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2007, p. A1.

All this connectivity forced upon the world by globalization is doing great things for disease treatments inside the Gap by making us all feel so much more vulnerable to pandemics. As such, vaccines, which “used to be seen as low-technology, commodity products that fetched low margins in rich countries and none at all in poor ones,” are now no longer viewed as dogs to be avoided but serious money makers worth throwing some serious investments at in the hope of global sales.

Better yet, as biotech firms lose their privileged status as companies that don’t face the competition of generics (inevitably produces in New Core states eager to break into the biz, like Croatia cited here), we’ll see even better products at cheaper prices all over the Gap.

Great stuff.

Tom around the web

Pride of place goes to a couple of weblogs that got tagged as 'Thinking Bloggers'. Both China Law Blog and Asia Logistics Wrap were selected AND recommended Tom as a thinking blogger. Congratulations, guys, and thanks.

+ Long-time contributor TM Lutas linked Unity of effort requires unity of command.
+ So did My Dogs are Smarter.
+ So did Hot soup in my eye.
+ So did A Second Hand Conjecture.

+ Generation Watch says Tom's his favorite person to read on the Internet.
+ The Writing on the Wal linked Wal-Mart IS the bottom of the pyramid!.
+ PurpleSlog writes that he has bought into Tom's ideas, to a large extent.
+ The Opinionated Bastard linked A hopeful sign on sanctions.
+ Mutant Palm linked Opposed Systems Design linked Told'ya so.
+ relevanTomorrow linked What China will do with its money is what all people do with their money: use it to make them richer.
+ ZenPundit linked Tom on Google Video: Conversations with History.
+ Red Hill Kudzu says Tom is really interesting.
+ New Yorker in DC linked Somalia: this won’t be pretty for the AU.
+ Pennypack Post linked History will say on postwar Iraq....
+ Brad DeLong linked Tom at UT yesterday.

More later

This week's column

Foreign policy: Distinguishing dedication from commitment

I recently spent some time with an old friend who commands a big chunk of America's overseas military. This natural-born leader explains the difference between dedication and commitment as follows: the chicken is dedicated to your breakfast, but the pig is committed.

Think about the wide chasm, and you'll come to the same conclusion I have about where our nation's foreign policy has gone so incredibly wrong under President George W. Bush. We've committed ourselves to specific outcomes where we should remain dedicated to broader goals.

Read on at Knox News.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

Early Column Sighting: Press of Atlantic City

So hard to figure where my column appears

I search "Thomas P.M. Barnett" on Google news and get this one in The Korea Times for last weeks' "global family" column:

But I don't get the two where I know it appears: Knoxville and Scripps.

Then I search "Thomas Barnett" and get none of those but come up with this one Times Daily from northern Alabama, where they apparently don't approve of my middle initials. This one is my Chinese male/female ratio column from the week before.

Then I search "Ngewa" on news and just get the Korea Times one again.

Then I search "Ngewa" on the blogs and get Deseret News.

Plus this Inside China News technology-focused site (this takes you just to site, because to see article requires laborious registration process).

Plus another one that's ag-focused but comes from the same China News site.

Plus one from a Kenya News blog aggregator site.

Plus a News Boob site I never got to open.

Then I search "Thomas P.M. Barnett" on blogs and get a Press of Atlantic City hit (although link doesn't work).

And so on and so on.

Isn't it sort of sad and weird that this is the best I can do on flagship Google?

Am I just stupid on how to search better or is this just the state of the art. I mean, even Scripps says they can't give me a decent read, and they distribute it!

The subpoenas on the attorney firings ...

Are a dry run on impeachment.

Bush is warned on what the Dems will do if he crosses certain lines before the end of his term.

Make no mistake: this "crisis" or "showdown" is nothing, the signal is everything.

This is pre-emptive, asymmetrical political warfare.

Given the international stakes, I approve--for the sake of this country and the world.

Overreaction?

Not with this administration's record.

And no, please don't offer analysis of this process WRT to either Clinton's impeachment or his previous treatment of U.S. attorneys. Those data points have little to do with this effort at political deterrence.

Signal-to-noise hard to fathom for some, easier for others.

DoEE approaches

ARTICLE: Report calls for unity on postwar rebuilding: The State and Defense departments should be forced to join forces in the future to avoid a repeat of Iraq, the study says, By Julian E. Barnes, LA Times, March 22, 2007

No surprise. The IG looking at Iraq recommends a "unity of command" on future postwar efforts.

The movement toward the Department of Everything Else continues ...

Thanks to John Mooney and Tyler Durden for sending this.

Interview with Tom in Chinese (prequel)

Remember the other day when I linked to that interview with Tom in Chinese? Turns out that was the second page. Oops. Why didn't anyone tell me? ;-)

Tom reminded me that he gave this interview back on February 1st in Oklahoma City.

Frank wrote in with this link, which is actually the first part of the interview. Thanks, Frank!

Let's run it through Google translation again:

According to Barnett : If China is ready to interview U.S. strategists action

Farewell press reports Wangqinchuan 1951 / influence over China's economic and political influence to larger security. From a long-term view, China will not only affect the world economy and into the mainstream. refused to concerns about the powers of the world are important safety issues involved

U.S.-China relations will become even closer, or even antagonistic atmosphere up? As is the rise of China as a world power, should be in the future and what kind of policy adjustment? With these questions in mind, Farewell recent telephone interview with a famous military strategist Barnett (Thomas PM Barnett).

Barnett held in 2004 and in 2005 published the "Pentagon's new blueprint" (The Pentag on ''s New Map, Putnam Publishing Group) and "Blueprint for Action : create a worthy future "(Blueprint for Action : A Future Worth Creating) two very forward-looking books, globalization, Sino-U.S. relations, the situation in the Middle East and other topics, be sure to check out unique insights into the United States after the publication of competing media reports. Barnett has been interpreted as future scientists, one of the most important strategic thinkers.

Barnett at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (University of Wisconsin-Mad ison) made Russian literature and international relations degree, and then specializing in the former Soviet Union. The situation in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and other regions with the Marxist, and a doctorate in political science at Harvard University. Barnett then injected into the strategic field. from 1998 to 2004 had served as Naval Academy (the U.S.. Naval War Coil ge) Professor of the Department of Research and Strategic Analysis, and served as the school's director of strategic planning and advisory bodies. New World under the auspices of the rules of forming the Study of Globalization.

In addition, in 2001-2003 Barnett also served as a researcher at the U.S. Department of Defense strategic planning. During this period, Barnett gradually summed up the situation for the future of a unique idea. In future, "The Pentagon's new blueprint," a book extension. Since that "the ideal realists and the idealists reality," Barnett. At present, "fashionable" (Esquire) and the magazine editor Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center honor scholar; Barnett also provide strategic management of the military and civil service, In many speeches were held.

According to an interview the following summary : Barnett

The United States should give priority to economic benefits

Farewell : In your book, pointed out that globalization pillar of the new world system. is a series of "core functions (Functioning Core)" countries, including North America. most of South America, Europe, China, Japan, Russia, India, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and other countries; Globalization and those with isolation Globalization has been forgotten corner was known as the "crack" (Non-Integrating Gap). also pose a threat to the security of the United States and the world black hole, do you think narrowing the "cracks" and increase its "core function" is the trend of the future, "cracks" to export "safe" ways to reduce, rather than export "democracy" But whether this means that the United States foreign policy in the future, we should abandon democracy and human rights? Output in what ways?

Barnett: The so-called "export security" is the time and effort on a global action against terrorism that the future of world peace can be achieved this goal. And reduce the "crack" at the end, besides the eradication of terrorism, dismantle terrorist fundamental pillars, on the other hand, these nations can also allow greater sharing of information and technology. In a globalized world, the close relations between the countries, rely on each other, it is no longer between "You lose my solitary wasp." "zero" absolute, but should be aware of the "double solitary wasp" in order to bring the greatest advantage. In addition, the impact of globalization, there is no so-called "rulers" and only rule makers.

As for the "export of democracy", many countries have their own integration and the development of democracy, After the Second World War, globalization in the country, with the development of politics. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Russia, Mexico, in place since the development of democracy in these countries; Several countries that were one-party politics, but the checks and balances by the opposition parties, under the leadership of the competition will continue to be replaced, and the United States "exporting democracy", which is arbitrary, relatively speaking, the United States democracy after a long time. The results can be developed, it will focus on its democracy, than on economic development. The economy is on the road to promote democracy, the United States should give priority consideration to the economic benefits of choosing allies, in addition, should stop certain countries, such as China, as competitors, but as partners.

As for China's development, I believe China's economic influence on the political and security influence than many larger, From a long-term view, China will not only affect the world economy and into the mainstream. refuse to participate in the major world powers concerned about safety issues, because these security issues involved in the so-called political instability in the country, and China's economic interests, Therefore, China is not in pretending that their ability to maintain global stability. only in their own interests rather than their position clear. The future, if China is ready to take action, then China will greet the advent of globalization, the world will discover, China is represented in the context of globalization.

China will soon open political speed

Farewell : What do you think the Chinese side by side with the United States in the 21st century will become the most powerful, then the relationship between China and the United States, like the 20th rise in the relationship between the United States and Britain, But against this theory that you believe the suspects have overestimated China, because China's economy has developed rapidly course. But the development is uneven, the gap between the rich and the poor in urban and rural areas, the reform of the political system has no obvious signs. In addition, do you think the development of the market economy, will promote the democratic process, China's economy has developed rapidly and But democracy seems to "delay", then you…… based on the above theory?

Barnett : only have to look to the nations of the world. will find the same level of economic development in the region do not necessarily have the democratic process, However, the economy will have been developed democratic countries; So we can see that after promoting democracy and economic development, is the inevitable result.

Although China's future economic impact could reach the world's top two strong, But security in the world have played a major impact has been not even be said to be minimal. Therefore, I predict, if China wants to achieve a comprehensive democracy, and economic development, we still need some time, China's population and the excessive demand in the overall development is a concern. China in the next 20 to 30 years there will be a great change in the social structure. This question is to reduce the gap between rich and poor in China is indeed a challenge, But we can see that China is finding ways to improve this problem.

China's foreign influence, I can cite the example of the United States. Some of the poorest countries neighboring the United States in trade with the United States, the economic impact of gradually by the United States, stimulate the development of the United States and these countries, though not the United States, but has become a part of the economy, therefore, When more and more people into the country and China's economy, China will be more powerful and more able to contend with other countries. What I see is the tremendous opportunities in China, I think that China has not overestimate the strength China would develop under the conservative political and military aspects of the economy; However, I have to admit. China in the political, security is still a long way to go.

Moreover, I also believe that China should be responsible for the safety world, rather than a passive bystander standing position. China's human rights and freedom of expression issues, I think the outside world to exert pressure on the media and communication networks, political will and the pace of China's opening up and freedom of expression even more rapidly than people imagine. Although the Communist Party wants to permanently hold control, The United States currently does not have adequate leadership also open and forward-looking thinking. The Chinese, however, a new generation of leaders in the upcoming 2010-2015 succession Under the new leadership in China, I will be optimistic.

Despite Beijing dominate Taiwan?

Farewell : What do you think the United States should abandon its policy on Taiwan ambiguous stance, explicitly says it will abandon Taiwan, alliance with Beijing's wishes. If the United States displayed in Beijing to launch military action to protect Taiwan at all costs, then it might act. at the time of their choice to stir up controversy, but it will be connected into the United States and trigger a war between the United States and Beijing. So do you think the United States should set up a military-strategic alliance with Beijing and Chau established organizations like NATO, so, to take the lead. But this idea does it mean that the United States should abandon Taiwan, despite Beijing dominate Taiwan?

Barnett : The question is not whether the United States will approach the Taiwan "so" to Beijing to take over Taiwan if Beijing. It was just a process, the ultimate goal of economic integration. And Beijing, will bring great benefits. Establish an economic alliance in Asia, the economic integration and shared interests, China will be like Germany, India, the French equivalent. Japan, like Switzerland, the economy is promising.

However, the economic system should be established only after the military alliance, after the military alliance countries can share information and energy strategies Under such circumstances, if a war breaks out between Asian countries is absolutely no benefit. War not only lowered the national military defense force, all countries will detract from the trust, if the military alliance. were willing to cooperate with the United States, both of the United States, Beijing, Taiwan, Japan or Korea. The absolute most important thing is to share the hands of military resources.

Therefore, in East Asia to establish a military alliance similar to NATO, it will be worthwhile and feasible strategy United States military forces in Asia will then be seconded to the Middle East and Africa, but also for military cooperation with China. After the military alliance should also hastened economic alliance, political and economic development together; Nevertheless, Taiwan and the mainland will not resort to force, because both sides believe that cooperation is the best way to achieve double solitary wasp, In cooperation with the United States, North Korea and East Asia will be able to find the problem.

(To be continued)